Virts And Locationless Solution

18.9k · June 23, 2005

Ok - I'll bite - Jeremy wanted to know what our speculations are on the new "solution" so --- Guess away - use your imagination..... :laughing:

edit to add link: This comment

re-edit: I will personally buy a 1 year premium membership for whomever is the "most correct" guess when it finally happens.....

Edited June 23, 2005 by StarBrand

9.1k · June 23, 2005

Under the revised definition of "wow factor," spotting a hamster in the wild will count for two smilies. :yikes: :laughing:

9.4k · June 23, 2005

If you actually know, you can't tell. Dig?

20.7k · June 23, 2005

Ha. I almost started this thread myself.

After reading Jeremy's position on virts (again), I can imagine it being an homage to PT Barnum.

A button will be on the GC.com home page labelled 'Click here for virtual caching!'. Interested people will be sent to Google or Yahoo's main page. :laughing:

Edited June 23, 2005 by sbell111

9.1k · June 23, 2005

If you actually know, you can't tell. Dig?

I'm sorry.

I wish to revise my previous remarks to state that you will just have to wait and find out how spotting a hamster in the wild will be handled under the new functionality.

9.4k · June 23, 2005

I wish to revise my previous remarks to state that you will just have to wait and find out how spotting a hamster in the wild will be handled under the new functionality.

Dude. Ixnay on the ampsterhay. They're on to us.

9.1k · June 23, 2005

I bet that the new game will be lots of FUN! I like to have FUN! I can't wait to see it! I wonder what it will be like!

20.7k · June 23, 2005

Will we have to move to Eastern Europe to play the new hamster game?

June 23, 2005

It was a gut feeling to stem the flood of virtuals - which by the way are not really geocaches. If a virtual is so important to show to others it made sense that a local would "own" and "maintain" that listing. Which, by the way, isn't really a geocache, which happens to be the basis of this activity.

Virtuals will be eliminated, since they aren't really geocaches.

18.9k · June 23, 2005

Well first of all you will need a few items:

a paperclip (no longer than 2")

2 yards of Duct tape

A digital camera

1 shoelace

......all I know.

June 23, 2005

:laughing:

Psst...

There is no new solution, thats just Jeremy's nefarious plot to keep the rabble to a minimum....

9.1k · June 23, 2005

Will we have to move to Eastern Europe to play the new hamster game?

Hamsters can be spotted and logged at any virtual location, including Eastern Europe. This presents certain challenges relating to the range of normal hamster habitat vis-a-vis the worldwide scope of geolocational entertainment activities. I know that Groundspeak is attempting to address this in the guidelines for the new functionality. I'm hoping that Jeremy won't ban me if I share just *one* sneak preview from the instructions:

18.9k · June 23, 2005

:laughing:

9.4k · June 23, 2005

I'll tell you some things:

It will involve pixel art
It will make you go "why didn't I think of that?"
Some of you will say "wow, cool!" while others will say "I thought of that already" and stomp off in a huff (even though they didn't really think of it).
I will owe someone some garlic mashed potatoes.

18.9k · June 23, 2005

...ok - so you do need a digital camera.............

June 23, 2005

Hey! I thought of that already!

June 23, 2005

Ha. I almost started this thread myself.

After reading Jeremy's position on virts (again), I can imagine it being an homage to PT Barnum.

A button will be on the GC.com home page labelled 'Click here for virtual caching!'. Interested people will be sent to Google or Yahoo's main page.

Close but no cigar.

To post a virt find please click link.

Find the virtual cache of your choice here.

Copy your find and paste to the virt page of your choice.

:lol: :laughing: :yikes: :lol:

1.3k · June 23, 2005

I have two guesses......

1. Things will stay the same but if you choose the Virtual option on your submit a cache page, a bolt of lightning will hit your house and permanently fry all your circuts preventing you from ever trying that again.

2. When you click the link to go to the new section it will auto-matically re-route you here.

2.1k · June 23, 2005

ItSimilar to Web Cam / the majority of Locationless caches, in that a photo will need to be submitted of you and/or your GPSr next to the Virtual? On submission the owner has to do the same, from which the Reviewer makes the "Wow!" call. Hopefully this will negate the "Find a Hamster" caches.

20.7k · June 23, 2005

You got something against hamsters? :laughing:

2.1k · June 23, 2005

You got something against hamsters?

I love them, especially dancing ones. :yikes:

5.3k · June 23, 2005

I don't know a lot about the new solution, but I am pretty confident about one thing:

Hamsters and gerbils will be in separate sections.

9.4k · June 23, 2005

Hamsters and gerbils will be in separate sections.

... and take separate vacations.

20.7k · June 23, 2005

I hate gerbils. If the placer isn't careful, their little tails can get caught when you close the lid. This breaks the seal and lets water in.

3.8k · June 23, 2005

...their little tails can get caught when you close the lid. This breaks the seal and lets water in.

It can also result in a broken tail. :laughing:

June 23, 2005

To log a virtual / locationless you must pose nude for a photo. It will be the advent of nude caching. Possibly a "WOW factor" involved (especially if you find that Silicon Valley, isn't just in California) and also the "why didn't I think of that."

June 24, 2005

You will have to choose whether you want to be:

A Traditional Cacher: Complaining about how useless and lame Virtuals, Locationless and half of all the micro caches are.

A Virtual Cacher: Logging finds and DNFs without ever leaving the confines of a) your armchair or :laughing: your padded cell.

Or

Entirely Locationless: Ascending to the mystical heights of the ancients you realize that finding one means you've found them all so you enslave whole continents to begin your logging.

:yikes:

1k · June 24, 2005

To log a virtual / locationless you must pose nude for a photo. It will be the advent of nude caching. Possibly a "WOW factor" involved (especially if you find that Silicon Valley, isn't just in California) and also the "why didn't I think of that."

Wow. Ok. Now will someone teach me how to filter my searches to exclude this type of cache?

:laughing:

June 24, 2005

To log a virtual / locationless you must pose nude for a photo. It will be the advent of nude caching. Possibly a "WOW factor" involved (especially if you find that Silicon Valley, isn't just in California) and also the "why didn't I think of that."

Wow. Ok. Now will someone teach me how to filter my searches to exclude this type of cache?

Looks like the WOW factor has just been found.

1k · June 24, 2005

[*]I will owe someone some garlic mashed potatoes.

Cool. You can post the recipe and call them "Irish Potatoes"

June 24, 2005

Virtuals may only be submitted by - and maintained by - hamsters.

2.3k · June 24, 2005

If you actually know, you can't tell. Dig?

I thought digging wasn't allowed....

June 24, 2005

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

It seems a shame that some opinions attempt to reduce the personality attributes of other folks.

I think virtuals are really cool and since a site is a cache and geo refers to physical placement a virtual is by definition a geocache.

9.4k · June 24, 2005

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It seems a shame that some opinions attempt to reduce the personality attributes of other folks.

I think virtuals are really cool and since a site is a cache and geo refers to physical placement a virtual is by definition a geocache.

Did you post to the right thread?

7.3k · June 24, 2005

As I have already mentioned elsewhere, I, myself, am much more partial to rabbits. But sadly, *sigh*, in this day and age of micros rabbits are getting fewer and farther in between. :anitongue:

9.4k · June 24, 2005

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It seems a shame that some opinions attempt to reduce the personality attributes of other folks.

I think virtuals are really cool and since a site is a cache and geo refers to physical placement a virtual is by definition a geocache.

I think you got that backwards, a cache is a container of stuff and Geo describes the location :anitongue:

June 24, 2005

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It seems a shame that some opinions attempt to reduce the personality attributes of other folks.

I think virtuals are really cool and since a site is a cache and geo refers to physical placement a virtual is by definition a geocache.

Did you post to the right thread?

Did you? :anitongue:

June 24, 2005

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It seems a shame that some opinions attempt to reduce the personality attributes of other folks.

I think virtuals are really cool and since a site is a cache and geo refers to physical placement a virtual is by definition a geocache.

according to Merriam-Webster Online, cache definition:

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

generally one wouldn't store anything in a virtual. not that there's anything wrong with them. just saying...

8k · June 24, 2005

I think Jeremy started this thread so we could speculate on the new Virtual/Location solution that will be introduced any day now :anitongue: , since this speculation tended to hijack any other thread on virtuals or locationless caches. So its funny that this thread is being hijacked Of course this is due to the problem that current Groundspeak policy on virtuals and locationless is so unclear that we can only speculate on what it is.

Here's what I think the solution will be. The new virtuals/locationless will have a ranking mechanism where finders will indicate the "WoW" factor of the cache. If after a certain number of finds the average "WoW" factor is below a certain threshold, the cache is automatically archived. Caches with hamsters will have a lower threshold to meet.

3.8k · June 24, 2005

I think Jeremy started this thread...

Did he? :anitongue:

8k · June 24, 2005

I think Jeremy started this thread...

Did he?

Sorry. It was started in response to a comment Jeremy made in another thread.

2.5k · June 24, 2005

To log a virtual / locationless you must pose nude for a photo. It will be the advent of nude caching. Possibly a "WOW factor" involved (especially if you find that Silicon Valley, isn't just in California) and also the "why didn't I think of that."

Don't say that unless you really mean it.. Because I will if I have to.

And any cacher on here who's ever seen me clothed before probably wants me to keep them on.

June 24, 2005

How about seperating the Virtual & Actual Caches?

So my stats would be 2 Virtual and 3 Real...

I love reading the rich history of these Virtuals.. :anitongue:

My first cache was a virtual.. Place of the last gunfight of the west! (my home town..)

Either seperate but integrated, or new website, new account, current virtual finds stats wasted.

Being a Newbie sucks, but I'll learn soon enough.... James.

June 24, 2005

I think being a newbie rocks, just look at all the great caches out there you haven't found yet, and all the angst you've missed here in the forums :anitongue:

i don't think wiping the Virts and Locationless finds from the current stats is a good idea, as a lot of cachers include one and/or the other in their totals, and I think a lot of greif might be caused if you drop someone down from, oh say...200 finds to 185.

24.7k · June 25, 2005

Virtuals only needed their own section similar to benchamrks. But I don't program sites so maybe there was other problems.

Loctionless though are backwards. The solution that I can see is to allow a region to be selected. Be it a radius or a geographic location like New Jersey. This limites the number of people who can find it to who is in the area. That way Yellow Jeep doesn't get 2000 logs and give the owner more work than they need. The other thing is that nobody can see who logs it unitl they log it. That way you can't just look up who found the local item and go there yourself. You do the work and maybe you find The same statue of liberty replica as the other guy or maybe you find an original one but either way you have to do the leg work. Once you log it you can read all the logs of everhone. Then you should be able to map the finds. The locationless itself would no longer have a coordinate sice they never had one to begin with.

That's my ideas on how to solve the problems.

June 25, 2005

Ive been reading the forums waiting for the LC caches to be up & running.I am a newbie and have found a few in the lttle town I live in.There are still a few in town I still need to log.I havnt figured out yet why they cant stay as they were.Must be a reason or there wouldnt be such a commotion going on about them.

June 26, 2005

2. When you click the link to go to the new section it will auto-matically re-route you here.

really! click the link!

June 26, 2005

2. When you click the link to go to the new section it will auto-matically re-route you here.

really! click the link!

10.1k · June 27, 2005

I'm starting to think that proof of maintenace might be required. Locationless and Virtuals have special maintenance requirements. I do see that the list of Locationless caches has diminished considerably in recent months. Perhaps Jeremy's large and bony elbow at work? Myself, at least recently, I have worked hard to make sure that I have not duplicated another entry, and that I have fulfilled the requirements. Is my picture required in the picture, despite the fact that I'm hiking alone? Not a good picture of either me, or the fire tower, but it was necessary to fulfill the requirments here...

Most of the locationless caches are great ideas! I would hate to hasten the demise of the diminishing category by pointing out examples. But a roof is not an 'Out of

Place Pyramid'. A copyrighted brand name (such as 'Salerno's Servicenter') may not look right, but is it 'Grammatically Incorrect"? Don't get me wrong. Those are two of my favorite Locationless caches.

My guess as to the solution to this vexing question is that proper maintenance will be required. I do realize that many Locationless and Virtual cache owners do properly mainain their caches. But, it is also true, that I have seen some horrrible examples of completely wrong, or frequently duplicated entries.

I certainly do hope that TPTB will will continue the acceptance of Locationless and Virtual caches (with smilies) in Geocaching.

Virts And Locationless Solution

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment